http://globalcapital.blogspot.com

Thanks for the compliment regarding my passion. However, you also continue to make one erroneous assumption after another about ME!

I didn't vote for the man you labeled as my hero -- George W. Bush -- in the last election. I don't even like him; just ask my friends! I also can't stand Sean Hannity, who you claim I have a poster of in my bedroom. You also mischaracterize my watching and listening to conservative talk shows. Sorry to disappoint your thinking, but I don't do either! I am also not a Republican, as you seem to imply! Your constant and erroneous condescending manner speaks more to readers here about your nature than mine. That behavior reflects who you are, not who I am! When you squeeze a lemon, you get lemon juice.

It could probably be argued that because your judgment and characterization of ME is so fraught with error, your judgment of the issue in question is likely also skewed toward error. Unlike you, I won't attempt to guess where you acquired them. I won't even assume that you are a liberal, in like manner as you have assumed that I am a conservative, despite the appearance that your condescending manner is typical of many of the liberal genre. I also don't ridicule your ideas. I just disagree with them.

While you appear to stand up for the right to life of a convicted killer, you appear unwilling to defend the life of an innocent soul. Would you defend a supposed right to "privacy" (Roe v. Wade) that doesn't appear in the Constitution that, at best, tramples on the rights of at least two other persons involved in every pregnancy -- the father and the child? You wouldn't defend in any way the right to life of the innocent, but suggest that you would defend the right to life of the guilty? That appears to be the very contradiction that you attempt to pin on me.

The reality is that it is not a "woman's body" that is at stake, since after 9 months, her body will eventually return to normal regardless. Abortionists often attempt to frame the act as contained only within the doctor-patient relationship, but there are rights of others involved, too. It is only the rights and life of the silent and voiceless child that is genuinely at stake. Society has not only the right, but the DUTY, to provide a voice and protection to that child, especially when the woman's personal self-interest is a conflict of interest with the rights of the other parties. Every fair court requires it!

I have a very close relative who laid in a coma for three weeks while my grandfather, a doctor, repeatedly plead with the Board of Directors of a hospital to allow her to have an abortion, without which both she and the child would have died. Eventually, they allowed the abortion. I support an abortion in such extreme circumstances, but the decision should always protect all parties -- not just the expediency of the woman's self interest.

I also support abortions in cases where the woman or girl has been forcibly impregnated, and thus denied any "choice" to engage in the behavior that brought the circumstances upon her. At some point, she deserves a choice. But once a woman makes a choice to engage in sexual promiscuity, her "choice" ends there. Now, she must accept the consequences. The same applies to the man, and our legal system is justifiably strict with men who create babies, regardless of whether they were intended or not. A man who makes them, must pay for them. There is no right to choose the consequences of their choices. What we plant, we also reap. That's the Law of the Harvest.

However, we all know that the vast majority of abortions (95%+) are abortions of convenience. They are intended to escape the consequences of poor decisions. They are purely for self-serving reasons. They teach that only one person should have "choice". The time to make a "choice" is before someone hops in bed, not after. We have the choice of behavior, but there is no right to choose the consequences of that behavior.

The Constitution also indicates that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. The same right to self defense -- to defend our homes and families -- is the power that we extend to our government to defend us through the police powers and the military. I can only extend to government the right that I have myself.

If someone has demonstrated such disregard for the right to life of others that he or she is a known menace to society, for example by killing someone, then they forfeit the right to live in society. Society has the right to protect itself from further injury by that guilty person. The same right of self defense that I have to kill someone who invades my home and threatens my family, is the same right to put to death someone who has proven that they are a menace to everyone else in our society. Execution of murderers is the exercising of society's right to self protection and self defense. It is the manifestation of our collective right to life over someone who refuses to respect that same right to life.

Fortunately, we have many protections and balances in our legal system to protect the rights of the accused as well, and I wouldn't want to remove any of those protections. As a society, we would rather err on the side of caution. The government's power to execute a convicted killer is the same power that every family has to kill an intruder into their home, but it is simply extended to society, rather than just a single family. The right to life of society's law-abiding members outweigh the forfeited rights of the guilty killer. The consent of the governed provides government the power to permanently remove a proven killer from society.

The point of my rather long-winded explanation here is simply to make the point that not only is the defense of innocent life in the womb and the execution of the murderous guilty founded in both cases in the Constitution. but also that, as I will also explain, they are also grounded in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Execution of the murdering guilty and protection of the unborn innocent are harmonious principles. And as I will also explain, they are also grounded in the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Interestingly, the removal of many of those protections is one very potent bone of contention that I hold with many conservatives and Republicans. The (so-called) Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act degraded the Bill of Rights so terribly that Americans will only in the future come to realize what a terrible mistake they made when their elected representatives sold them out by destroying the rights afforded to them in the Constitution. I believe the day will come when habeas corpus, the right of due process, and most of the other protections in the Constitution will no longer be available to most Americans. Only then will we realize that we were asleep at the wheel.The Bill of Rights is dead; we just don't realize it yet!

Many people in our society have lost the awareness that the rights we have in our Constitution are not granted by government. They are "endowed by our Creator", as the preamble explains. Once we allow ourselves to be persuaded that government granted those rights, we are just a short step away from that government taking those rights away, also. If the day ever comes that we believe that government is the source of those rights and protections, tyranny will inevitably be just around the corner.

Many in our society are also surprised to learn that most of the rights, checks and balances, and representative forms of government embodied in the Constitution, had their roots in the Judeo-Christian Old Testament. When Moses led Israel out of Egypt, Moses became weary of the constant demands on his time to adjudicate problems. God revealed to Moses the representative form of government that is the foundation of the Constitution we have today, including the election by the people of representatives, and the process of progressive appeals to higher courts. The most often-cited source that the Founding Fathers used in their writings, that influenced their creation of the Constitution, was the Old Testament. Thus, the farther we stray, as a society, from this document, the farther we stray from the form of government that God established from ancient times as the most effective government form for welfare of humanity.

Abortion has been forbidden also since ancient times (See Exodus 21:22). The requirement that murderers be executed also comes from ancient days. Those who engage in abortion for convenience, either by doing it or encouraging it, I have no doubt, will be held accountable when they stand before the Creator at the day of judgment. That's the inescapable Law of the Harvest. I can only wonder if perhaps, in that Ultimate Court before the Supreme Judge, He might call forth as the ultimate witness (our law of witnesses also has its root in the Old Testament) those souls who were denied life because of the influence of those who insisted that abortion was a right, in denial of the rights of the other parties involved. At that day, when they stand face to face with their accuser (another OT principle) I have no doubt that there will be no boulder nor mountain big enough for those people to crawl under, unless they have repented prior to that day. It is my personal testimony that those who are guilty of this crime, will, at that day, find the accountability that they sought to escape -- through abortion -- in this life.